Three little Jewish Twitter monkeys (See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil) are very unhappy that Jodi Rudoren, the NY Times’ incoming Israel bureau chief, is sharing tweets with Israel critics like Ali Abunimah and Phil Weiss. The monkeys are Marc Tracy of the neocon Tablet Magazine, Noah Pollack of Commentary, Josh Block (didn’t he just get out of the doghouse for a similar infraction?), and Jeffrey Goldberg (I know that’s four, I originally had three and then remembered Commentary).

I half expected crap like this from the likes of Tablet, Commentary and Block, who had this to say about the Times reporter’s “indiscretion:”

These are not people you engage like this…You really don’t even want to be seen in public with them…

It’s Block with whom you’d really not even want to be seen in public, not Abunimah.

While I detest Goldberg’s smug pro-Israelism, I half expected that he’d be classier than to throw in his lot with the pro-Israel media mafia. Which only goes to show you should never underestimate Goldberg’s cheesiness. Here’s Rudoren’s sin in The Atlantic blogger’s eyes:

She shmoozed-up Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian activist who argues for Israel’s destruction; she also praised Peter Beinart’s upcoming book as, “terrific: provocative, readable, full of reporting and reflection.” She also linked without comment to an article in a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese newspaper.

Actually, Goldberg is lying because Abunimah doesn’t “argue for Israel’s destruction,” he argues against Zionism, which are two different things. As for Beinart, someone more profound than I will have to explain the sin of publicizing a popular book by a critical Zionist like Beinart. Goldberg scolds the Times’ reporter for her temerity in promoting such a “polemical” (my word, not Goldberg’s) work by comparing it to a book written by Bibi Netanyahu. Which of course makes no sense since Beinart is a journalist with no specific political allegiance; while Bibi is a prime minister. Goldberg goes on to admit he hasn’t even read Beinart’s book, so one wonders how he grants himself the right to judge the contents at all.

Goldberg further argues that if a journalist like Rudoren tweets to an Israel critic she has to balance it with a tweet to a Kahanist. Which is very funny because I don’t believe I’ve ever heard or read Ali Abunimah advocating killing anyone, whether Israeli or not. Violence is something that to Kahanists is as Israeli as blue and white. But the distinction would be lost on Goldberg. Abunimah is “an extremist,” you see, while Goldberg is, well, a nice Jewish boy who never hurt anybody.

The Goldberg Method requires all mainstream journalists to keep a running tally of their tweets and for every left-wing “extremist” you engage you have to balance that with a right-wing “extremist.” You can see how nutso the entire concept is.

Here’s the “thinking” behind the Twitter code of omerta they’re swearing on Rudoren. Apparently, you can share a tweet or two with ’em to show you’re playing fair. But don’t fraternize because they might have some communicable disease that could infect all the pro-Israel world. Something like the smallpox John Smith brought with him to the New World which decimated Pocohantas, her brave warriors, and the Native American peoples.

I have my own doubts about the quality of the reporting Rudoren will offer Times readers given what I’ve read of previous stories she’s written on the subject. But how the hell can you not come to the defense of a reporter who’s using Twitter precisely the way it should be used–to communicate freely with friend and foe. Someone will have to explain to me why it’s legitimate to enforce a twitter ban on a practicing journalist. It seems downright perverse.

Not to mention, Ethan Bronner was never known for replying to any of his critics (at least he never replied to me). The fact that she’s willing to invest at least in a tweet for the sake of dialogue is somewhat promising.

You claim,
“Actually, Goldberg is lying because Abunimah doesn’t “argue for Israel’s destruction,” he argues against Zionism, which are two different things.”
I am not familiar with the exact words Abunimah uses but, as I understand it, Zionism is about the establishment of a home (state) for the Jews in Zion (Palestine or Eretz Yisrael). The destruction of Zionism, which I support, is synonymous with the destruction (political and not physical) of the Jewish state.

RE: “Someone will have to explain to me why it’s legitimate to enforce a twitter ban on a practicing journalist. It seems downright perverse.” ~ R. Silverstein

FROM Dahlia Scheindlin, +972 Magazine, 2/14/12:

(excerpts)…After two weeks in America visiting family and friends, two observations struck me powerfully. First, the understanding that Israel is committing terrible deeds that are destroying itself and its neighbors, has penetrated among you…
…On this trip, I was stunned to learn that now you don’t even really want to visit Israel because you can’t face what you’re increasingly coming to see as a brutal occupying entity flirting with fascist notions. . .
…My second observation is that because of your fear – not of the goyim or the anti-Semites, but of yourselves! – you are keeping a low public profile. On this trip, I suddenly realized how naïve it was to imagine that J Street had sufficiently opened the door for anyone who cares critically for Israel to speak out. I underestimated how deep and terrible the intimidation has become and that one political lobby group is far from enough.
I do understand: those of you who still call the Jewish community home, are afraid of the onslaught that you will receive from your (our) very own people. I hold no illusions about how vicious the attacks might be. We Jews, not the goyim, will call you the most painful names, will threaten in various ways to label you as beyond the pale of your people, should you voice your critique. You might be chastised in your professional community. You will be hit not only by shadowy bloggers but by the very cherished and established groups you have loyally, even automatically, supported over the years. The anger might come from your friends and it might even come from your family. . .
…Here’s how that made me feel: abandoned, by the liberal Jews of America. You were swept away by Ruth Wisse’s thesis that liberals betrayed the Jewish cause by believing too much in rational universalism and failing to acknowledge the unique, everlasting threat of anti-Semitism…

P.S. FROM Ted Rall, 07/22/10: …Umberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Eternal Fascism” describes the cult of action for its own sake under fascist regimes and movements: “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”…
SOURCE – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/22-1

Exactly. Any peep of any kind threatens the whole structure and this provides some sense of how distorted, anachronistic and foolish present day Zionism has become!

Personally, when I challenge the beliefs of Zionists I run into, they get very mad and call me names, hang up (if it’s a phone discussion) or tell me that I must be smoking something! Never ever, not once, has an American Zionist counterparty offered to discuss the issues, the history of the ME etc. Not once despite my nudging. They simply can’t face the truth that the whole edifice of racist Zionism is already in the dustbin and the right wing in Israel is fighting for, persecuting Arabs for,precipitating war with neighbors for, dropping bombs and destroying homes for,….nothing, an empty, even laughable, worldview.

The old myths don’t work and the new immediacy and distribution of discussion is not workable for a Zionist because they have no coherent story any more. I truly believe that history will show eventually that the “jig was up” with racist Zionism long before 2012.

“Actually, Goldberg is lying because Abunimah doesn’t “argue for Israel’s destruction,” he argues against Zionism, which are two different things.” Since when, and for all pragmatic reasons ever, should anyone consider Israel apart from Zionism? Ossimoro…Ciao!

If ‘only’ they were treated as equals and not treated worse than the Jewish Ethiopians that go to Israel to be treated like African slaves with only menial jobs and little opportunity to gain an education to better their lot. The Palestinian schools in Israel are dilapidated old buildings with broken windows, burning hot tin roofs that make the schools literal ‘ovens’ in the summer and friges in the winter. The plumbing rarely works 100% (rarely have soap or toilet paper) and the ‘hand-me-down’ school text books have anti-Arab comments in the content and and written on the margins put there by the previous racist Jewish users.

It seems a little unfair to call those who complain about her from one side a “mafia” who are trying to “silence” her – but then on the other hand to make a post of your own complaining about valentines she wrote to Israel.

I never told her to stop tweeting as the Three Little Media Monkeys did. I criticized the actual content of what she wrote & her ideas. They criticized the fact that she tweeted at all & who she tweeted. There’s a difference.

If you are referring to the headline: “Stop Jodi Rudoren Before She Tweets Again!” I think you must understand that it is tongue-in-cheek and not a “command” for her to stop tweeting. You sometimes have over-the-top headlines like that for effect.

In the article itself, the writer talks about the foolishness of using twitter in the way that she did – but does not “attempt to force” her to stop doing so, as your headline states.

If she had been tweeting things you found objectionable or was friendly to people on twitter whom you strongly disagree with, you may have been similarly critical of her actions in light of her position of Jerusalem Bureau Chief.

When a gang of right wing journo hacks attacks Rudoren for tweeting things they don’t like to people they don’t like, what do you think their ultimate goal is? To encourage free-wheeling discourse? Of course not. They want to stop her from speaking publicly to figures they dislike.

Rudoren has of course tweeted to people whose views I dislike. I have no problem with that. I expect it.

“The Goldberg Method requires all mainstream journalists to keep a running tally of their tweets and for every left-wing “extremist” you engage you have to balance that with a right-wing “extremist.” You can see how nutso the entire concept is.”

This is not “nutso”. NOT SO! It is balanced by the following unstated but evidently parallel requirement:

No mainstream journalist is required to keep a running tally of their tweets and for every right-wing “extremist” except for purpose of “balance” to “left-wing extremists”. AND BTW, who is an “extremist” is in the eye of the enforced of the “rules”.

Are settlers “extremists” because they act in violation of international law (and the worst of them also in more focused violation of Palestinian human rights)? Are those who call for enforcement of international law “extremists”.

Some people will get these answers exactly backward. From others, that is!

The is something i do not quite understand.
You claim to be Zionist and pro-Israel, do doesn’t it makes you part of the same Mafia ?

What i am getting at is that i think that all the name calling is unnecessary and shouldn’t be welcome within the Zionist community, which all of us are part of (You, Goldberg the others and myself) why can’t we have a discussion without the name calling ?

and i have seen you have been called many names on the web, and i find it disgusting.

If you find the names I’m called elsewhere “disgusting” have you ever said that to the owners of those sites?

When Jeffrey Goldberg says Jodi Rudoren should shut up & has no right to tweet to Ali Abunimah or Peter Beinart, then they are imposing a gag on speech which I find reprehensible. I have to call them out for that.

Unfortunately, with Israel’s existence on the line, it’s long past the time for pleasantries and polite society. Words get heated, strong language is used. It’s because there is so much at stake & it means so much to us.

When I first began this blog I did not use such harsh language. But unfortunately, the hatred I saw & heard from the far right made me realize that if I didn’t develop a tough skin & learn to stand up for myself I’d be overwhelmed. That’s something I could never allow to happen.

Richard, this is an orchestrated opposition to create an environment for grandstanding. Rudoren is in the same gang as the “block” and this was just a fake “adversarial” forum in which they could slander the real targets endlessly. It was done in reaction to blog posts like yours pointing out the conflicts of interest with Ethan Bronner and how, despite this, Rudoren will probably be worse in lockstep with right-wing Israeli interests. Wouldn’t this kind of attention from this particular cast to this target in the public immediately signal to you something is fishy?

The term orchestrated opposition is actually more complex than the deed itself. But, it’s effective, as you can see.

If you were gagged this comment would not have appeared. If you keep niggling over this you’ll be banned four times & this time I’ll ensure you don’t return. Get on with it & comment on issues of substance.

I love how Israel-enders always have their ways with words. You see, Anti-Zionism means “transformation”, not “destruction”, and Israel and Zionism are not the same thing because some non-zionists have Israeli id cards. Even Norman Finkelstein call them out on this. They want to end Israel, and we all know it.

I find your rhetoric objectionable, pure hasbara. There are anti Zionists who want to “end” the domination of Israeli Jews & change the nature of Israel. Though I’m not an anti-Zionist, this doesn’t mean Israel would “end.” Israel as you know it & wish to preserve it would certainly end as would your privilege as a Jew over your non Jewish fellow citizen.

Anti-Zionists want to end the exclusivity of the Jewish state, a state for Jews only. Call that what you want.

As for hidden meanings — “security” to the Zionists means “we need more land belonging to others.” “Terrorism” is any form of violent objection to violent Zionist aggression against other people and violent confiscation of other people’s property. “De-stablizing” means the appearance of any countervailing force to Israel in the region, i.e. a stabilizing influence. “Anti-Semitism” is any resistance to Zionist policies and practices, regardless of where and from whom such criticism emanates.